I'm sure this is a stupid question because I didn't follow the story that closely, but did they have a cell phone? If so, we're they not able to get a signal?
Business people love to spend 10 hours designing their email template with the company logo. If everyone blocks images, then all that time is wasted, costing corporate america billions of dollars in lost productivity.
So he thinks people should what? Watch more TV? Bill's just a generation or 2 behind. TV was his generation's idiot box. Game systems are today's. I suppose he's just pissed that many of his idiots will all be dead in a few more years.
how much CO2 production and pollution is due to aircraft though? (honest question)
If it's a very small component, it might still be worth looking at, but I'd focus my attention else where.
Re:Nothing inconvenient about the results
on
An Inconvenient Truth
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
No. You strongly discourage people from buying polluting devices and encourage efficiency. You do that by taxing low efficiency vehicles and using that money to subsidize high efficiency ones (in their size class). If fluorescent bulbs save energy over incandescents, then you do the same with those, and whatever else. Taxing fuel might put us 5 or so years ahead of schedule by doing it this way, but taxing fuel will hurt the poor more and risk the economy much more.
Granted, this results in people making the changes more slowly, but you're not jolting the economy. People can still buy SUVs, but instead of buying one that gets 11mpg, they either have to pay a big premium, or buy one that gets 30mpg. Overall, you push up the efficiency standards, while letting people still have a choice and you don't cause a sudden price increase in transportation costs.
The big problem is GM and Ford. They're screwed and they know it. If we raise the efficiency standard by very much, we're basically banning American made cars in America. Politicians can't let those companies be devastated (huge layoffs != votes), so you won't see the US seriously tackle GW until the American corporations get their shit together. Unfortunately, we have a chicken and the egg situation - the corps won't do anything unless they have to.
Diggs threading is also a joke. I agree. I think it's because they want to be all "Web 2.0" and have a narrow column for the content with lots of blank space on the sides. With their layout and some of their members, you'd end up with people posting replies that were 1 character wide. I will say the quality of comments has risen tremendously over the last several months. Take that statement however you want.
I do go to digg for the variety and rapid change of their news links. It's not really the same thing as/., even if thats what they're gunning for. Actually, I just use an Iframe to display their news using their javascript on my home page. Refreshing that is a LOT faster than going to their home page.
they're talking about buying fewer bombs and enlisting fewer soldiers.
Given the type of wars we're seeing now, we might be better off cutting the number of bombs than the number of soldiers. How much does a bomb cost to purchase, maintain and deliver? The typical price for bombs appears to be about $60K to $130K each. Look at the budget, we spend about 50% more on the Airforce than the Army. Which is likely to be more necessary against countries with a much lower tech level?
Now, people will talk about how great the new weapons are. However, they always turn out to be less great than the initial reports are. There's a good chance we could be more effective with more troops to handle rotations and fewer bombs/cruise missiles/etc. Shock and Awe made for great TV, but it was expensive and took dollars away from the stuff actually getting used.
BTW, this is coming from someone who grew up as a big fan of advanced aircraft, cruise missiles, high tech anything, etc. But, the reality is we're not fighting the USSR anymore. Wars shouldn't be fought to look cool and divert as much money as possible to companies that are going to hire you after your public services is done. They should be fought to be won.
I see a lot of people complaining about this. Companies are pretty much stuck with 2 choices for file storage and enterprise email/calendaring/etc: Microsoft (Windows server, AD, Exchange, etc) and Novell (SUSE, eDirectory, Groupwise, etc). What other choices do we have for companies with more than 100 or 200 users?
Social Security, medicare and medicade don't come out of the same funds as the military or welfare. The accounting may be BS, but they're still separate. Cutting SS or medicare won't cut your taxes. As far as pensions go, they should be paid and not touched. They were promised an amount and they should get it. That pretty much leaves cutting discretionary spending as the only way to lower taxes without increasing the debt. And of that, military takes up the biggest single chunk.
But yet, for some reason, when people think of government spending, they think of welfare. It's almost as if they think there's millions of people living a life of luxury on their dime. I'm just not seeing it. What I am seeing is $114B for the Airforce. $115B for the Navy/Marines, $94B for the Army, another $78B for other military spending. $15B for NASA, $18B for the DOJ, $53B for the DOT, $29B for Homeland Security, $11B for the treasury, $20B for the dept of ag, $8B for the EPA, and $23B for DOE. For more social type stuff we have $65B for the Dept of Health and Human services, $53B for the dept of Education, and $31B for HUD. Where do you cut?
Again, I'll say, the military is the biggest chunk of the budget. You will not be able to cut taxes and not run up the debt without cutting the military. If people don't want the military cut, then guess what? They'll have to pay for it. You can debate that there's a huge threat out there. You can debate that we created it -- we certainly created Iran and Iraq, and even had a hand in Afghanistan. You can point to China's growing strength, or the worrisome trends in Russia. But, what you can't debate is that the military is the biggest piece of the budget pie. And you can't say that a single woman of 3 children in NYC is the reason why you pay so much in taxes.
Note: I want to premptively address that I don't think military pay should be cut. My point is simply that generally, the same people who want a bigger military also are the ones who bitch about taxes. Lower taxes, balanced budget, large military. Pick any 2.
Lower taxes vs lower interest rates. Hmm. Let the government take out a $2,000 loan per person per year for the population, with no one making the decisions being responsible for paying it back, or let the population decide if they want to take out a loan themselves... Which one is more responsible?
All the government did was borrow money to inject into the economy. They didn't decrease spending, they increased it. And I'll bet that many of them got a hell of a lot richer in the process. If you want lower taxes, tell them to cut spending. If you want to cut spending, tell them to cut the thing that takes over half of the budget: the military. Guess what? That won't happen. People in the US are so brain washed that we have to control the world that they'll never let that happen. The other thing is military contracts are a sizable chunk of the US manufacturing jobs. If you cut military budget, you cut jobs in every state. That'll be real popular. It doesn't matter that if we cut the military in half, we'd still out spend everyone else and have no deficit. Plus there's the whole pride BS: Military BIG! Penis BIG! AGHHHH! Me Crush YOU!
So, I'd say you can pretty much live with your taxes. They're never going to go down long term. You might get some short term bribes from politicians, but eventually, the bills have to be paid.
If we could OCR these incoming images, maybe that would eliminate at least the deluge of stock pumpers.
For now. They'll just put in more noise, make the image wavy, etc. It's just too easy to get around, and by doing that, we'll simply end up with more expensive servers and no improvement in filtering. Even if it works, you're back to using a regular bayes filter, which will get poisoned.
If we do any image filtering, I'd think something based on something agnostic to the content like a neural net would be more effective. It might be possible to train it to recognize spammy images, but it wouldn't have to try to read it. Of course, that'd take even more CPU horsepower to train and scan. We might need that dual quad core server next year after all.
What would legally happen if a fictional write-in such as "scooby doo" wins? That would indicate obvious fraud. Would the runner up win? Would we stick with the current administration until another election could be arranged? Would we end up with Hillary and Condi dressed in a large 2 person dog suit?
Actually, that's not a bad idea. Why not use WoW to treat addictions? Let's say someone has a gambling problem. Wouldn't they be better off playing WoW than online poker? Go play keno sometime, it almost feels like an opium den. Sure, it'd be better to treat the addiction properly, but the person has to be willing to be treated. Introducing them to WoW could divert people to a less harmful addiction. People with a gambling problem lose way more than $15 a month.
I started playing wow in open beta and my highest level character is 56. I've got young kids and have canceled WoW twice when I didn't have time or got bored. For people with kids, I've found the rogue to be the best fit. Why? Because of vanish and stealth. If you have to go afk for a bit, you can stealth. If you have to go afk right away, you can vanish move a bit and be pretty safe within a few seconds. I only group with RL friends because they understand that I might have to go AFK for 10 or 15 minutes to deal with a child that woke up or whatever. BTW, I'm not a single parent, but with 2 young children, sometimes both need dealt with, even after their bed time.
How much of this is over reacting to an imagined threat though? How many schools are actually sued over stuff like this? How may were quickly dismissed? People often react to things that aren't much more than urban legends.
BTW, I wouldn't count cases that were over 10 years old or cases where the school deserved to be sued.
So what do you tell kids who get punished when challenging what a teacher says? How about when their science teacher at a public school tells that that the bible has the _true_ answers? School is not anything like it was when I was there, and to be honest, I don't think it's a surprise that this great swing towards the conservative coincides with a major drop in school performance.
There's a LOT of albums out there that I wouldn't buy. They're simply not worth the price of a decent meal to me (or even a crappy one). But, if someone offered them to me for free, I'd take it. I might listen to it once. Most CDs fit in this category.
Another issue is who wants to spend $15 to figure out if you like a band? Let's lay out the options:
Radio -- what if the band isn't mainstream enough to be played on clear channel? Borrow -- Hmm, what if you don't know anyone who has the cd? Band's website -- some bands have mp3s up, of course, they'll be cherry picked. MTV -- er, right. See radio. Internet radio -- more targetted and wider variety than radio. ??? -- profit.
The best options I see there are the band's website and internet radio. Guess what? Both involve the net. Perhaps it's time to rethink the business model. We're getting to where most people would be happy without a physical copy. This would dramatically drop the costs to the recording companies. And don't give me that crap about the cost of studio time. It should be getting cheaper, not more expensive.
The problem I see is the music industry wants to keep the profits from the reduced cost that the internet can bring. Customers are giving them the finger, and going elsewhere -- p2p -- to get the product. Cut the cost of quality albums to $2 to $5 and you'll see piracy drop and sales will go up dramatically.
Slashdot Mirror
and then compaq came along...
I'm sure this is a stupid question because I didn't follow the story that closely, but did they have a cell phone? If so, we're they not able to get a signal?
Business people love to spend 10 hours designing their email template with the company logo. If everyone blocks images, then all that time is wasted, costing corporate america billions of dollars in lost productivity.
Maybe management wouldn't pay for the extra tapes to store them off site. Trust me, that's not that far fetched.
So he thinks people should what? Watch more TV? Bill's just a generation or 2 behind. TV was his generation's idiot box. Game systems are today's. I suppose he's just pissed that many of his idiots will all be dead in a few more years.
how much CO2 production and pollution is due to aircraft though? (honest question)
If it's a very small component, it might still be worth looking at, but I'd focus my attention else where.
No. You strongly discourage people from buying polluting devices and encourage efficiency. You do that by taxing low efficiency vehicles and using that money to subsidize high efficiency ones (in their size class). If fluorescent bulbs save energy over incandescents, then you do the same with those, and whatever else. Taxing fuel might put us 5 or so years ahead of schedule by doing it this way, but taxing fuel will hurt the poor more and risk the economy much more.
Granted, this results in people making the changes more slowly, but you're not jolting the economy. People can still buy SUVs, but instead of buying one that gets 11mpg, they either have to pay a big premium, or buy one that gets 30mpg. Overall, you push up the efficiency standards, while letting people still have a choice and you don't cause a sudden price increase in transportation costs.
The big problem is GM and Ford. They're screwed and they know it. If we raise the efficiency standard by very much, we're basically banning American made cars in America. Politicians can't let those companies be devastated (huge layoffs != votes), so you won't see the US seriously tackle GW until the American corporations get their shit together. Unfortunately, we have a chicken and the egg situation - the corps won't do anything unless they have to.
Diggs threading is also a joke.
/., even if thats what they're gunning for. Actually, I just use an Iframe to display their news using their javascript on my home page. Refreshing that is a LOT faster than going to their home page.
I agree. I think it's because they want to be all "Web 2.0" and have a narrow column for the content with lots of blank space on the sides. With their layout and some of their members, you'd end up with people posting replies that were 1 character wide. I will say the quality of comments has risen tremendously over the last several months. Take that statement however you want.
I do go to digg for the variety and rapid change of their news links. It's not really the same thing as
writing code is bottlenecked by thinking, not typing.
maybe they need a bigger neck.
Royalty lost mosts of its power to the state, the state in turn has lost most of its power to the multi-nationals
So, who gets the power next?
they're talking about buying fewer bombs and enlisting fewer soldiers.
Given the type of wars we're seeing now, we might be better off cutting the number of bombs than the number of soldiers. How much does a bomb cost to purchase, maintain and deliver? The typical price for bombs appears to be about $60K to $130K each. Look at the budget, we spend about 50% more on the Airforce than the Army. Which is likely to be more necessary against countries with a much lower tech level?
Now, people will talk about how great the new weapons are. However, they always turn out to be less great than the initial reports are. There's a good chance we could be more effective with more troops to handle rotations and fewer bombs/cruise missiles/etc. Shock and Awe made for great TV, but it was expensive and took dollars away from the stuff actually getting used.
BTW, this is coming from someone who grew up as a big fan of advanced aircraft, cruise missiles, high tech anything, etc. But, the reality is we're not fighting the USSR anymore. Wars shouldn't be fought to look cool and divert as much money as possible to companies that are going to hire you after your public services is done. They should be fought to be won.
I see a lot of people complaining about this. Companies are pretty much stuck with 2 choices for file storage and enterprise email/calendaring/etc: Microsoft (Windows server, AD, Exchange, etc) and Novell (SUSE, eDirectory, Groupwise, etc). What other choices do we have for companies with more than 100 or 200 users?
Social Security, medicare and medicade don't come out of the same funds as the military or welfare. The accounting may be BS, but they're still separate. Cutting SS or medicare won't cut your taxes. As far as pensions go, they should be paid and not touched. They were promised an amount and they should get it. That pretty much leaves cutting discretionary spending as the only way to lower taxes without increasing the debt. And of that, military takes up the biggest single chunk.
But yet, for some reason, when people think of government spending, they think of welfare. It's almost as if they think there's millions of people living a life of luxury on their dime. I'm just not seeing it. What I am seeing is $114B for the Airforce. $115B for the Navy/Marines, $94B for the Army, another $78B for other military spending. $15B for NASA, $18B for the DOJ, $53B for the DOT, $29B for Homeland Security, $11B for the treasury, $20B for the dept of ag, $8B for the EPA, and $23B for DOE. For more social type stuff we have $65B for the Dept of Health and Human services, $53B for the dept of Education, and $31B for HUD. Where do you cut?
Again, I'll say, the military is the biggest chunk of the budget. You will not be able to cut taxes and not run up the debt without cutting the military. If people don't want the military cut, then guess what? They'll have to pay for it. You can debate that there's a huge threat out there. You can debate that we created it -- we certainly created Iran and Iraq, and even had a hand in Afghanistan. You can point to China's growing strength, or the worrisome trends in Russia. But, what you can't debate is that the military is the biggest piece of the budget pie. And you can't say that a single woman of 3 children in NYC is the reason why you pay so much in taxes.
Note: I want to premptively address that I don't think military pay should be cut. My point is simply that generally, the same people who want a bigger military also are the ones who bitch about taxes. Lower taxes, balanced budget, large military. Pick any 2.
Lower taxes vs lower interest rates. Hmm. Let the government take out a $2,000 loan per person per year for the population, with no one making the decisions being responsible for paying it back, or let the population decide if they want to take out a loan themselves... Which one is more responsible?
All the government did was borrow money to inject into the economy. They didn't decrease spending, they increased it. And I'll bet that many of them got a hell of a lot richer in the process. If you want lower taxes, tell them to cut spending. If you want to cut spending, tell them to cut the thing that takes over half of the budget: the military. Guess what? That won't happen. People in the US are so brain washed that we have to control the world that they'll never let that happen. The other thing is military contracts are a sizable chunk of the US manufacturing jobs. If you cut military budget, you cut jobs in every state. That'll be real popular. It doesn't matter that if we cut the military in half, we'd still out spend everyone else and have no deficit. Plus there's the whole pride BS: Military BIG! Penis BIG! AGHHHH! Me Crush YOU!
So, I'd say you can pretty much live with your taxes. They're never going to go down long term. You might get some short term bribes from politicians, but eventually, the bills have to be paid.
I'll correctly finish your sentence:
Windows became popular because every one pirated it. I don't think I remember seeing a legitimate copy of windows 3.1 outside of an office.
Those crazy neocons will do ANYTHING to not have to pay for people's healthcare. What's next? A war???
If we could OCR these incoming images, maybe that would eliminate at least the deluge of stock pumpers.
For now. They'll just put in more noise, make the image wavy, etc. It's just too easy to get around, and by doing that, we'll simply end up with more expensive servers and no improvement in filtering. Even if it works, you're back to using a regular bayes filter, which will get poisoned.
If we do any image filtering, I'd think something based on something agnostic to the content like a neural net would be more effective. It might be possible to train it to recognize spammy images, but it wouldn't have to try to read it. Of course, that'd take even more CPU horsepower to train and scan. We might need that dual quad core server next year after all.
well, if the wife has a c-section, they can just tie the tubes while they're in there.
What would legally happen if a fictional write-in such as "scooby doo" wins? That would indicate obvious fraud. Would the runner up win? Would we stick with the current administration until another election could be arranged? Would we end up with Hillary and Condi dressed in a large 2 person dog suit?
De Beers would LOVE to kill these folks
From some of the stuff I've read, there are quite a few people who think that's literally the truth.
Actually, that's not a bad idea. Why not use WoW to treat addictions? Let's say someone has a gambling problem. Wouldn't they be better off playing WoW than online poker? Go play keno sometime, it almost feels like an opium den. Sure, it'd be better to treat the addiction properly, but the person has to be willing to be treated. Introducing them to WoW could divert people to a less harmful addiction. People with a gambling problem lose way more than $15 a month.
I started playing wow in open beta and my highest level character is 56. I've got young kids and have canceled WoW twice when I didn't have time or got bored. For people with kids, I've found the rogue to be the best fit. Why? Because of vanish and stealth. If you have to go afk for a bit, you can stealth. If you have to go afk right away, you can vanish move a bit and be pretty safe within a few seconds. I only group with RL friends because they understand that I might have to go AFK for 10 or 15 minutes to deal with a child that woke up or whatever. BTW, I'm not a single parent, but with 2 young children, sometimes both need dealt with, even after their bed time.
How much of this is over reacting to an imagined threat though? How many schools are actually sued over stuff like this? How may were quickly dismissed? People often react to things that aren't much more than urban legends.
BTW, I wouldn't count cases that were over 10 years old or cases where the school deserved to be sued.
So what do you tell kids who get punished when challenging what a teacher says? How about when their science teacher at a public school tells that that the bible has the _true_ answers? School is not anything like it was when I was there, and to be honest, I don't think it's a surprise that this great swing towards the conservative coincides with a major drop in school performance.
There's a LOT of albums out there that I wouldn't buy. They're simply not worth the price of a decent meal to me (or even a crappy one). But, if someone offered them to me for free, I'd take it. I might listen to it once. Most CDs fit in this category.
Another issue is who wants to spend $15 to figure out if you like a band? Let's lay out the options:
Radio -- what if the band isn't mainstream enough to be played on clear channel?
Borrow -- Hmm, what if you don't know anyone who has the cd?
Band's website -- some bands have mp3s up, of course, they'll be cherry picked.
MTV -- er, right. See radio.
Internet radio -- more targetted and wider variety than radio.
??? -- profit.
The best options I see there are the band's website and internet radio. Guess what? Both involve the net. Perhaps it's time to rethink the business model. We're getting to where most people would be happy without a physical copy. This would dramatically drop the costs to the recording companies. And don't give me that crap about the cost of studio time. It should be getting cheaper, not more expensive.
The problem I see is the music industry wants to keep the profits from the reduced cost that the internet can bring. Customers are giving them the finger, and going elsewhere -- p2p -- to get the product. Cut the cost of quality albums to $2 to $5 and you'll see piracy drop and sales will go up dramatically.